SPECIAL PRINT

pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity

Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents
Marco Lendi
Dr. Heinz Wagner
Dr. Peter Wuhrmann
SWAN Analytische Instrumente AG, 8340 Hinwil/Switzerland

Extended pH
calculation model

PowerPlant Chemistry SPECIAL PRINT (2014) PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1)

 ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS

Analyzer AMI Deltacon DG

Degassed Cation Conductivity
n Automatic and continuous
measurement of total, cation and
degassed cation conductivity
n Re-boiler according to Larson-Lane
(ASTM D4519-94)
n Tightly controlled degassing
temperature
n Calculation of sample pH and
ammonia concentration.

Ask for technical documentation or

check our homepage

Made in Switzerland

www.swan.ch

Water / Steam Analysis Equipment for Saudi Electric Company Power Plant PP10
manufactured by SWAN Systeme AG.

SWAN Analytische Instrumente AG · 8340 Hinwil/Switzerland

Sonderdruck-Lendi aus Heft2014-01-0:Innenseiten 12.03.14 09:56 Seite 1

pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents PPChem

pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in

Mixtures of Alkalization Agents
Marco Lendi, Heinz Wagner, and Peter Wuhrmann

ABSTRACT
Proper measurement of pH is a key factor in corrosion risk surveillance in water-steam cycles. Since it still seems
difficult to measure the sample pH directly with glass electrodes, pH calculation, using the difference between sample
conductivity before and after a strong acid ion exchanger, is a frequently used alternative. The precision and reliability
of this measuring method is well known and proven in water-steam cycles containing one alkalization agent only.

For applications using mixtures of alkalization agents, the pH calculation model has never been verified. We investi-
gated calculation models to predict the precision and limitations of pH calculation by differential conductivity measure-
ment in morpholine-ammonia and ethanolamine-ammonia mixtures.

INTRODUCTION
Proper measurement of pH is a key factor in corrosion risk
surveillance in water-steam cycles. Many power plant
chemists still consider the reliable and accurate on-line
measurement of pH with ion selective glass electrodes in
condensate or feedwater a difficult task. To guarantee a
reliable reading, high maintenance effort is required.
An increasing number of power plants are using mixtures
of alkalizing agents like ammonia-ethanolamine or ammo-
nia-morpholine. This not only raises the question of
whether or not the existing calculation models can be
used, but also of how far the calculated pH deviates from
reality.

A pH calculation algorithm from differential conductivity
measurement is a widely used alternative method for pH
measurement in low conductivity water. The VGB guide-
line (VGB-S-006-00-2012) describes a calculation model
with two conductivity measurements before and after a
strong acid ion exchanger. The calculation model is limited
to demineralized feedwater which contains only ammonia,
sodium hydroxide or lithium hydroxide as an alkalizing
agent [1].
In the following paper, the specific conductivity, acid con-
ductivity and pH of high-purity water containing two acid-
base pairs (representing the two alkalizing agents), an acid
and a neutral contaminant as well as carbon dioxide at
standard temperature were simulated. The simulated
parameters were compared with the output of SWAN's
extended calculation model and the VGB model. The devi-
ations and possible solutions are discussed as well.

State-of-the-art measuring equipment calculates the pH pH CALCULATION MODELS

according to the VGB guidelines, but with a model to
cover other alkalizing agents like morpholine and
ethanolamine. The performance and reliability of such
measuring systems have been demonstrated in several
field-tests [2] as well as the precision, which has been
discussed for various conditions. For example, the influ-
ence of contaminants like sodium chloride or carbon diox-
ide has been considered [3]. However all these studies
assume that only one alkalizing agent is present in the
water.
Basic Setup for pH Calculation by Differential
Conductivity
Two conductivity probes are required for simultaneous
measurement before and after a strong acid cation
exchanger. Figure 1 shows an example of a flow cell to
measure differential conductivity.
The conductivity reading of the first probe (specific con-
ductivity) is converted to 25 °C according to the model
chosen by the customer. For example, in a classic all-
volatile treatment (AVT) program, the conversion model for
ammonia is set. But there are also compensation models

© 2014 by Waesseri GmbH. All rights reserved.

PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1) 1

Sonderdruck-Lendi aus Heft2014-01-0:Innenseiten 12.03.14 09:56 Seite 2

PPChem pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents

available for morpholine, ethanolamine, sodium hydroxide SWAN pH Calculation Model

and strong acid. If the sample contains a mixture of alka-
In the strong acid ion exchanger, every positively charged
lizing agents, the model of the dominant species should
ion is exchanged for H+. So, every contamination leads to
be chosen. Further reading shows that the temperature
a pH decrease. In the model used for the calculation, we
conversion of the conductivity within the range of 25 °C to
assume that the contamination is mainly sodium chloride
50 °C depends only little on the chemical composition of
(NaCl), therefore chloride is the main contamination
the sample [4].
species after the cation exchanger. The acid conductivity
is defined with equation (2):
The strong acid exchange resin should exchange a posi-
tively charged ion for protons. Therefore the alkalizing kCC = lH + · [H + ]CC + lOH – · [ OH – ]CC + lCl – · [ Cl – ] (2)
agent is replaced with water, and a neutral salt like sodium
chloride is converted to hydrochloric acid. So, the tem- where ␭H+, ␭OH– and ␭Cl– are the equivalent ionic conduc-
perature conversion model of the conductivity reading tivities and [H+], [OH–] and [Cl–] the molar concentrations of
after the strong acid exchange resin will be set to strong the ions.
acid.
The electroneutrality after the cation exchanger is defined
in equation (3):
Specific conductivity Acid conductivity
measurement measurement [ H + ]CC = [OH – ]CC + [Cl – ] (3)

Equations (2) and (3) are converted to equation (4) with the
dissociation constant KW = [H+] · [OH– ]. The pH after the
cation exchange resin is defined as the negative logarithm
of the [H+]CC concentration.

kCC + (kCC)2 – 4 · KW (lH + + lCl–) · ( lOH– – lCl– )

Strong acid
[ H + ]CC = (4)
2 · (lH + + lCl –)
exchange resin

pHCC = –log ([ H + ]CC ) (5)

Assuming that sodium chloride is the only contaminant,

the excess of [H+]CC after the cation exchanger must come
from that source:
Figure 1: KW
Flow cell for differential conductivity measurement. [ NaCl ] = [ H + ]CC – (6)
[ H + ]CC

The specific (total) conductivity ␬SC is the sum of the ions

VGB Standard [1] of the water, the alkalizing agent and the contaminant
given by the equation (7):
The VGB Standard uses the following equation (1) to cal-
culate the pH of demineralized feedwater in the range
kSC = lH+ · [H +] SC + l OH– · [OH –] SC + (l Cl– + l Na+) · [ NaCl ] (7)
from 7.5 to 10.5:
+ lB+ · [ B +]SC
1
pHB = log ( kSC –
CB
k
(
3 CC
+ 11 (1) Equation (7) is converted with equation (6) and with
respect to the electroneutrality of the alkalizing agent
[B+]SC = [OH–]SC – [H+]SC to obtain [H+]SC as a function of
where ␬SC defines the specific conductivity, ␬CC the cation
␬SC and ␬CC: To simplify equation (8), [H+]CC is a place
conductivity (or acid conductivity), and CB is a factor that
holder for a term containing ␬CC (4).
depends on the alkalizing agent.

(
([H+]SC)2 · (lH+ – l B+) + [H +] SC · ( l Cl – + l NH+) (8)
Alkalizing agent CB KW
Ammonia 273
· )[H +] CC –
[ H + ]CC
(
) – kSC + KW · (lOH – + lB+) = 0

Sodium hydroxide 243 The quadratic equation (8) is solved to [H+]CC to calculate
the pH before the cation exchanger from ␬SC and ␬CC. ␭B+
Lithium hydroxide 228
is the equivalent ionic conductivity of the alkalizing agent.

2 PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1)

Sonderdruck-Lendi aus Heft2014-01-0:Innenseiten 12.03.14 09:56 Seite 3

pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents PPChem

Assumption for the Calculation Model
In part some assumptions were already mentioned to
explain the calculation models.
• The sample contains only one alkalizing agent.
• The contamination is sodium chloride.
• The calculation model works for sample pH within 7.5
to 10.5.
In the next section, conditions are discussed which violate
the assumptions for the calculation model but represent
realistic situations. The VGB and SWAN calculation mod-
els have been tested with the following disturbances:
• Two alkalizing agents in the sample
• Carbon dioxide and sodium chloride as contaminants
The advantage of the expanded model used by SWAN is
the integration of sodium chloride as a contaminant and
the independent treatment of the specific and cation con-
ductivities. Regarding this last point, ␬SC and ␬CC are not
coupled by a constant factor (1⁄3 in the VGB guideline). This
is an important fact for the pH calculation below pH 8.5.
pH MODELING WITH FOUR VARIABLES
In Figure 2, the important steps for the pH modeling are
listed. In the first step, all possible variables are defined.
The defined variables are:
• Two alkalizing agents and their concentration ranges
• Neutral salt (e.g. sodium chloride)
• Weak acid (e.g. carbon dioxide)
The system defined by these four variables is a polynomial
of 5th degree which is solved to the proton concentration.
So the pH of the defined system is known.
To calculate the total conductivity, one has to know the
concentration of all ions in the solution present at the
known pH. For example, carbon dioxide is a weak acid
and will dissociate in water to form the bicarbonate ion
HCO3– and the carbonate ion CO32– . With respect to the
known pH value from step 2, the equilibrium concentration
of each ion is calculated. Therefore, the specific (or total)
conductivity of the system is calculated.
In the last step, the system is modified to simulate the
equilibria after a cation exchange resin. The following
changes are made:
• The two alkalizing agents remain completely in the
cation exchange resin.
• The neutral salt is converted to its corresponding acid.
A contamination of sodium chloride leads to hydrochlo-
ric acid after the cation exchange resin.
• Weak acids remain in the water.
With this new system, the pH and all ion equilibrium con-
centrations are calculated. With the resulting ion concen-
tration, the conductivity after a strong cation exchange
resin is calculated.
The calculated specific and cation conductivities are the
input parameter for the VGB and the SWAN calculation
models (Figure 3). With respect to the calculated specific

Concentration range of alkalizing

agent no. 1 Definition of
variables
Definition of Concentration range of alkalizing
variables agent no. 2
Define contaminants (CO2, NaCl) pH calculation
of the system
pH calculation
Solution of a polynomial of 5th degree
of the system Calculation of
the ion
equilibria
Calculation of
Comparison

the ion Calculation of

equilibria the specific
conductivity
Calculation of
the specific Calculation of
conductivity the cation
conductivity
Alkalizing agents
Calculation of exchanged
the cation Neutral salt turned into
conductivity its corresponding acid
VGB SWAN Parameter to test the
CO2 passes the cation
model model calculation model
exchange resin

Figure 2: Figure 3:
Steps for correct pH modeling. The calculated specific and cation conductivities were put into
the VGB and SWAN calculation models.

PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1) 3

Sonderdruck-Lendi aus Heft2014-01-0:Innenseiten 12.03.14 09:56 Seite 4

PPChem pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents

and cation conductivities, the pH was calculated with the
VGB and the SWAN calculation models. Additionally, the
calculated pH was compared with the calculated pH val-
ues of the differential conductivity calculation systems to
plot the deviations.
COMPARISON OF THE pH CALCULATION
MODELS
1. Mixture of ammonia and ethanolamine with sodium
chloride contamination
In the first example, three variables are used:
• Alkalizing agent no. 1: Ammonia with a concentration of
0 mg · kg–1 to 2 mg · kg–1
• Alkalizing agent no. 2: Ethanolamine with a concentra-
tion of 0 mg · kg–1 to 2 mg · kg–1
• Contamination with 50 µg · kg–1 sodium chloride
In Figures 4 and 5, the simulated pH and specific conduc-
tivity before the cation exchange resin are shown with
respect to the ammonia and ethanolamine (ETA) concen-
trations. The two figures summarize the results of steps 2
and 3 of the modeling process shown in Figure 2.
Assuming that both alkalizing agents remain in the cation
exchange resin and sodium chloride is exchanged for
hydrochloric acid, the strong acidic solution has a
simulated pH of 6.062 and a cation conductivity of
0.369 µS · cm–1.
The simulated specific and cation conductivities were
used to re-calculate the pH of the solution with the VGB
and SWAN calculation models. The calculated pH was
compared with the simulated pH shown in Figure 4 to cal-
culate the deviation, expressed as ⌬pH.
In Figures 6 and 7, the VGB and SWAN pH calculation
models are compared for one alkalizing agent only and a
contamination of 50 µg · kg–1 sodium chloride. In Figure 6,
the deviation of the VGB model becomes relevant at
ammonia concentrations lower than 1 mg · kg–1. For con-
ditions with ethanolamine only, the VGB model's result is
0.05 pH units higher than the simulated pH.
Figures 8 and 9 demonstrate that the VGB and SWAN
calculation models perform well even in a mixture of
ammonia and ethanolamine and with a simulated sodium
chloride contamination of 50 µg · kg–1. The only exclusion
zones are the limits of the pH calculation models, which
means below a pH of 8 and in regions where one alkalizing
agent is present.
2. Mixture of ammonia and morpholine with sodium
chloride contamination
This simulation follows the first example, but with morpho-
line as the second alkalizing agent. Additionally, the con-
centration ranges of the alkalizing agents have been
increased to 4 mg · kg–1 to get closer to real dosing condi-
tions in French nuclear plants [5].
• Alkalizing agent no. 1: Ammonia with a concentration of
0 mg · kg–1 to 4 mg · kg–1
• Alkalizing agent no. 2: Morpholine with a concentration
of 0 mg · kg–1 to 4 mg · kg–1
• Contamination with 50 µg · kg–1 sodium chloride

10

10.0

9
k [µS · cm –1]
pH

5.0
8

7 0
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
ETA 1.0 1.0 –1 ] 1.0 1.0 –1 ]
kg
mg ·
[mg 0.5 ETA kg
· kg –1 0.5 [ [mg 0.5 0.5 [ mg ·
] 0 0 NH 3 · kg –1 0 0 NH 3
]

Figure 4: Figure 5:
pH before cation exchange resin. Specific conductivity in mixture of NH3 and ETA.

4 PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1)

Sonderdruck-Lendi aus Heft2014-01-0:Innenseiten 12.03.14 09:56 Seite 5

pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents PPChem

0.04 VGB model 0.04 VGB model

SWAN model SWAN model

0.02 0.02

DpH
DpH

0 0

– 0.02 – 0.02

– 0.04 – 0.04

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

NH3 [mg · kg –1 ] ETA [mg · kg –1 ]

Figure 6: Figure 7:
Deviation with one alkalizing agent only (NH3). Deviation with one alkalizing agent only (ETA).

0.05 0.05
DpH
DpH

0 0

–0.05 –0.05
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
] –1 ]
–1 1.0
1.0
k g · kg
0 0.5 g· 0
0.5
0.5
[mg
0.5 1.0 [m 1.0 0 A
1.5 2.0
0
ET
A
NH3 [mg · kg –1
1.5 2.0 ET
NH3 [mg · kg –1 ]
]

Figure 8: Figure 9:
pH deviation of VGB calculation model. pH deviation of SWAN calculation model.

The pH and specific conductivity with respect to the alka- line instead of ammonia and vice versa – is run, SWAN's
lizing agent mixture are simulated in Figures 10 and 11. calculation gives an error not higher than 0.04 pH units.
After a cation exchange resin, the pH and cation conduc-
tivity are the same as in the first example (pH = 6.062,
␬ = 0.369 µS · cm–1). 3. Mixture of ammonia and ethanolamine with carbon
dioxide contamination
In Figures 12 and 13, the VGB and SWAN pH calculation
In this model, the contamination source is a weak acid
models are compared with the simulated pH value of the
(carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid).
system. The VGB model does not include morpholine, this
The concentration ranges of the alkalizing agents are
explains why the error increases at low ammonia concen-
comparable with those from example no. 1.
trations. The opposite behavior is shown with the SWAN
model, which gives the best results with low ammonia con- • Alkalizing agent no. 1: Ammonia with a concentration of
centrations. Even if the wrong alkalizing agent – morpho- 0 mg · kg–1 to 2 mg · kg–1

PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1) 5

Sonderdruck-Lendi aus Heft2014-01-0:Innenseiten 12.03.14 09:56 Seite 6

PPChem pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents

10 15.0

9 10.0

k [µS · cm –1]
pH

8 5.0

7 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Mor 2.0 Mor 2.0 2.0 –1 ]
2.0 pho
g ]
–1
pho
line 1.0 · k line 1.0 1.0
[mg
· kg
[mg 1.0 [mg [mg
· kg –1 0 0 NH 3
· kg – 1 0 0 NH 3 ]
]

Figure 10: Figure 11:

pH before cation exchange resin. Specific conductivity in mixture of NH3 and morpholine.

0.04 VGB model 0.04 VGB model

SWAN model SWAN model

0.02 0.02
DpH

DpH

0 0

– 0.02 – 0.02

– 0.04 – 0.04

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

NH3 [mg · kg –1 ] Morpholine [mg · kg –1 ]

Figure 12: Figure 13:

pH deviation in water containing 4 mg · kg–1 morpholine and pH deviation in water containing 0 mg · kg–1 NH3 and
50 µg · kg–1 NaCl. 50 µg · kg–1 NaCl.

• Alkalizing agent no. 2: Ethanolamine with a concentra- increases the cation conductivity from 0.055 to
tion of 0 mg · kg–1 to 2 mg · kg–1 0.214 µS · cm–1 after the cation exchange resin.
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) contamination of 50 µg · kg–1
In Figure 15, the influence of CO2 on the pH calculation of
Sources of carbon dioxide intake are air leakages and a system containing only ammonia is shown. The devia-
decomposition products of organic substances in the tion is a consequence of the assumption that an increased
water-steam cycle. Carbon dioxide is highly soluble in cation conductivity is treated as sodium chloride contami-
alkaline water because it reacts with water to form car- nation. This error becomes more important with lower
bonic acid ions. In Figure 14, it is shown that the pH of the ammonia concentrations. Although the properties of CO2
water decreases because of the weak acid. The carbonic are completely different from sodium chloride, the influ-
acid ions will pass the cation exchange resin, giving a low ence on pH calculation based on differential conductivity
pH of 6.271 and an increased cation conductivity of measurement is negligible.
0.214 µS · cm–1. In other words, the 50 µg · kg–1 CO2

6 PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1)

Sonderdruck-Lendi aus Heft2014-01-0:Innenseiten 12.03.14 09:56 Seite 7
pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents
10
9 – 0.02
pH
8 – 0.03
7 – 0.04
2.0
1.5
ETA 1.0 1.0
[mg 0.5
· kg –1 0.5 0 H 3
[mg
] 0 N
Figure 14:
pH with 50 µg · kg–1 dissolved carbon dioxide.
Degassed cation conductivity (the sample after a strong
acid ion exchanger is degassed to remove the carbon
dioxide) is a powerful tool to eliminate the influence of CO2
on the cation conductivity. In this example, 50 µg · kg–1
CO2 increased the cation conductivity from 0.055 to
0.214 µS · cm–1. However the influence of the too high
cation conductivity reading on the pH calculation is hardly
measurable.
4. Mixture of ammonia and ethanolamine with carbon
dioxide and sodium chloride contamination
In this example, ammonia and ethanolamine are combined
with two contaminations.
• Alkalizing agent no. 1: Ammonia with a concentration of
0 mg · kg–1 to 2 mg · kg–1
• Alkalizing agent no. 2: Ethanolamine with a concentra-
tion of 0 mg · kg–1 to 2 mg · kg–1
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) contamination of 50 µg · kg–1
• Contamination with sodium chloride of 50 µg · kg–1
–1
With a contamination of 50 µg · kg sodium chloride and
50 µg · kg–1 CO2, the simulated pH after the strong acid
ion-exchange resin is 5.929 with a cation conductivity of
0.491 µS · cm–1.
The simulated model represents conditions which are
close to or higher than the limitations of cation conductiv-
ity in water-steam cycles. Figures 16 and 17 show the pH
deviation of the much simpler calculation model based on
differential conductivity compared with that of the com-
plex pH simulation model. The green color indicates
PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1)
PPChem
– 0.01 VGB model
SWAN model
DpH
2.0
1.5
–1 ]
· g
k
– 0.05
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
NH3 [mg · kg –1 ]
Figure 15:
pH deviation from CO2 with 0 mg · kg–1 ETA.
regions where the deviation is between 0.00 and 0.02 pH
units, yellow from +0.02 to 0.03, orange from 0.03 to 0.04
and red is for deviations +0.04 and higher. The scale for
negative deviations uses bluish colors accordingly.
It is clear that the VGB calculation model gives slightly
better values with high ethanolamine concentrations.
However with lower alkalizing agent concentrations, the
pH values are too low. Therefore, the SWAN calculation
returns better results with lower alkalizing agent concen-
trations or if the sample pH is below 8. In summary, the
deviations from the VGB and SWAN models are lower
than 0.05 pH units. In consideration of the conditions in
the water-steam cycle (pH between 8 and 10.5), the devi-
ations are lower than 0.02 pH units.
CONCLUSION
Two pH calculation models based on differential conduc-
tivity measurement were compared with a simulated pH in
mixtures of alkalizing agents. Additionally, contaminations
with sodium chloride and carbon dioxide were simulated
to model the conditions in a water-steam cycle as realisti-
cally as possible.
On the basis of realistic simulated water-steam cycle con-
ditions, the following conclusions can be drawn for mix-
tures of alkalizing agents:
• In a pH range from 8 to 10.5, the deviation of both pH
calculation models was lower than 0.02 pH units.
7
Sonderdruck-Lendi aus Heft2014-01-0:Innenseiten 12.03.14 09:56 Seite 8

PPChem pH Calculation by Differential Conductivity Measurement in Mixtures of Alkalization Agents

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02
DpH

DpH
0 0

–0.02 –0.02

2.0 2.0
–0.04 –0.04
1.5 1.5
–1 ] –1 ]
1.0 1.0
k g · kg
0 0.5 g· 0 0.5
0.5 mg
0.5 1.0 [m 1.0 0 A
[
0 A
NH3 [mg · kg –1
1.5 2.0 ET NH3 [mg · kg –1
1.5 2.0 ET
] ]

Figure 16: Figure 17:

pH deviation of VGB calculation model. pH deviation of SWAN calculation model.

• In samples with a pH lower than 8.5 and a high con-
tamination source, SWAN's expanded pH calculation
model gives better results than the VGB calculation.
• Deviation in pH calculation due to carbon dioxide as a
contaminant is insignificant.
pH calculation based on differential conductivity measure-
ment is a reliable and low maintenance alternative to ion
selective pH measurement even in samples containing
mixtures of alkalizing agents.
REFERENCES
[1] Sampling and Physico-Chemical Monitoring of Water
and Steam Cycles, 2012, VGB PowerTech Service
GmbH, Essen, Germany, VGB-006-00-2012-09-EN
[2] Maurer, H., On-Line pH-Measurement by Differential
Cation and Specific Conductivity, 1997. Presented at
the 1997 International Chemistry On-Line Process
Instrumentation Seminar in Clearwater Beach, FL,
U.S.A.
[3] Bursik, A., PowerPlant Chemistry, 2009, 11(4), 220.
[4] Wagner, H., PowerPlant Chemistry, 2012, 14(7), 455.
[5] Nordmann, F.; Aspects on Chemistry in French
Nuclear Power Plants, 2004. Presented at the 14th
International Conference on the Properties of Water
and Steam in Kyoto, Japan.
THE AUTHORS
Marco Lendi (B.S., Chemistry, University of Applied
Science, Zurich, Switzerland) joined SWAN Analytical
Instruments in 2009 working first as a quality manager and
starting in 2010 in SWAN's customer support group. In
2012 he was promoted to the R&D group.
Heinz Wagner (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, University of
Zurich, Switzerland) has a 35-year background in research
and development for optical systems for industrial
process applications in gas and water analysis. He held
positions as the head of R&D for photometric gas analysis
for Tecan AG (Switzerland) and in online spectrometry with
Optan AG (Switzerland) before joining SWAN Analytical
Instruments in 2003 as a research scientist for water qual-
ity control applications.
Peter Wuhrmann (Ph.D., Analytical Chemistry, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology ETHZ, Zurich, Switzerland)
conducted several years of research work with ion-sensi-
tive microelectrodes for intracellular ion measurements at
the Institute of Cell Biology at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETHZ). He was a member of the founding
group of SWAN Analytical Instruments, where he has been
responsible for R&D since 1991.
CONTACT
Marco Lendi
SWAN Analytical Instruments AG
P.O. Box 398
8340 Hinwil
Switzerland
E-mail: marco.lendi@swan.ch

8 PowerPlant Chemistry 2014, 16(1)

 ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS

Your notes: AMI INSPECTOR Conductivity -

Portable Inspection Equipment
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
..................................... n Battery-powered instrument for
..................................... standalone operation
n Equipped with USB interface for easy
..................................... data storage and download to PC
..................................... n Optional:
Quality certificate for quality
..................................... assurance of process analyzers
n Step-by-step instruction manual
..................................... as a Standard Operating Procedure
..................................... (SOP).

..................................... Made in Switzerland

SWAN Analytische Instrumente AG

www.swan.ch · Hinwil/Switzerland
 ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS

Headquarters:
SWAN Analytische Instrumente AG
8340 Hinwil/Switzerland
Phone +41 44 943 63 00
swan@swan.ch

Worldwide representation...
„ „ South Africa
„ „ Germany
„„ France
„„ Great Britain
„ „ Italy
„ „ Austria
„„ Turkey
„„ Spain
„ „ China
„ „ Hong Kong
„„ Singapore
„„ Korea
„ „ USA
„„ United Arab Emirates

Made in Switzerland www.swan.ch